K KUPPUSAMY Vs. VEMBULI AMMAN TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the concurrent Judgment and Decree of the Courts below - Principal District Judge, Vellore, made in A.S.No.24/2001, dated 28.09.2001, confirming the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.1023/1985 by the Principal District Munsif, Vellore dated 30.03.2001. Unsuccessful Defendant is the Appellant.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is a temple " Sri Vembuliamman Temple. Case of the PLAINTIFF Temple is that the suit premises " Shop bearing D.No.157, Long Bazaar, Vellore was let out to the Defendant for a monthly rent of Rs.225/-. The Defendant has been running a flour mill shop therein. Tenancy between the PLAINTIFF temple and the Defendant is an oral tenancy. For insufficiency of space, for keeping articles including the temple Vaganam, the PLAINTIFF Temple requires the suit premises for own use and occupation. The PLAINTIFF temple issued the statutory notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, on 29.04.1985. The said notice was issued to the Defendant giving clear fifteen days' notice. The Defendant received the notice and issued a reply on 04.05.1985, containing false allegations. The registered notice subsequently was returned unserved on 08.05.1985. The tenancy was terminated by giving fifteen days' clear notice ending with English Calendar month 31.05.1985. Since the Defendant received the said notice before 04.05.1985, the Defendant is bound to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the PLAINTIFF on 01.06.1985. Since the Defendant failed to vacate the premises, the PLAINTIFF has filed the suit for eviction. The PLAINTIFF being a temple, the provisions of Rent Control Act does not apply to the tenancy.

(3.) CONFIRMING the findings of the trial court, the learned District Judge referring to Exs.A-5, A-6, A-11 and A-14 held that those documents clearly establish that the tenancy is only on monthly basis. Pointing out to Exs.A-11 to A-14, (wherein the Appellant himself has admitted his readiness to pay the rent on monthly wise), the learned District Judge negatived the plea of the Appellant that the tenancy was a yearly tenancy. The contention raised by the Appellant that the requirement of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act has not been complied with was negatived by the First Appellate Court also. The First Appellate Court has also relied upon AIR 1995 SC 2482.